The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Get tough or prepare for a flood > Comments

Get tough or prepare for a flood : Comments

By Philip Ruddock, published 15/10/2009

While all governments proclaim that they determine who enters and settles in Australia, they should be judged by their record rather than their rhetoric.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Rudd is a Dud .
Think about him , what has he achieved ?
Posted by ShazBaz001, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Zombie"

(For Phillip Ruddock, in his coldness)

We call your name but once, fearing you’ve died
and risen far from home, where thoughts are lead
from one thing to another — while, for pride,
the enemy’s confined. And so it’s said:

"We call you, friend, but all echo has fled
your vale of song, where once the good man cried
for simple justice sake on the long ledge.
We call your name but once, fearing you’ve died

to us in life, and on the other side
(which science knows as nought, as though you bled
for nought) your fortune sought, and did decide,
and risen far from home, where thoughts are lead.

Such weight of metal, friend – breaker of bread
for any hungry soul – is deicide
itself (as well they know, who know the spread
from one thing to another) while, for pride

of rhetoric, those whom you locked outside
themselves and silent you, and yours is fled
from view — since only soulless you denied
the enemies confined." And so it’s said.
Posted by Tom Clark, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:19:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock said

"The Rudd Government would have Australians believe that the pursuit of international co-operation is sufficient. The deployment of immigration officials and police abroad, dialogue with other nations and even advertising campaigns are not new strategies. The Howard government used them all. In reality, however, the only measures that worked were domestic in character. These included the return to Indonesia of a number of vessels destined for Australia, the implementation of the so-called Pacific solution with the co-operation of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and humane mandatory detention for those who reached Australia."

This statement is simply is not backed by the evidence.

It is false to say "the only measures that worked were domestic in character". Cooperation with other nations was employed at the time and played a significant role in preventing the departure of boats from neighbouring countries. If it didn't work, as Mr Rudock now tries to suggest, why did the previous government continue to put money into this approach.

It is also a sick joke to say that the detention of refugees in Australia was "humane". There is ample evidence that it was brutal and damaging - which apart from not deterring further arrivals, served to chew up massive amounts of taxpayer money and make it far harder for people to settle quickly and start being productive members of our community once they were finally released.

All the Pacific Solution - locking people up on Nauru for up to 5 years - achieved was spending many millions of taxpayer dollars, damaging innocent people, sending some people back to direct danger in Afghanistan and perverting good governance in the Pacific. The majority of the people sent there eventually ended up being recognised as refugees and settling in Australia.

Responding to the movement of asylum seekers in our region is undoubtedly a difficult issue with no easy answers. But if we ignore the basic facts and simply make things up, we will never have a workable - let alone humane - response.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:25:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only the Strong and Wise Provide .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s disappointing to find Ruddock, under whom illegal entry by boat was stopped, trying to widen his appeal by waffling on about people smugglers and “putting peoples lives a risk."

If it were not for people thinking that it’s OK for them to come to Australia illegally, informally, irregularly (whatever you want to call it) there would be no call for people smugglers. And, concerning ourselves with the lives of people dishonest enough to hire people smugglers to get them to Australia is just a way of trying to get acceptance from the bleeding-hearts. That’s the trouble with politicians: they think that they can eventually appeal to most people, when experience shows that very few people ever change their minds on any issue.

Rudd even echoes the latest Ruddism: “Border security was, is and always will be difficult public policy.”

Rubbish! It is illegal (despite the bleeding-hearts’ misinterpretation of the rules) for anyone to enter any country sneakingly and without documentation. It is illegal for people to overstay visas (there are said to be 49,000 of those cheats in Australia at the present time). It is up to the government of the day to do something about it, not to pose as ‘humane’ people while ignoring the best outlook and wishes of the people whom they represent and who pay them.

The only people with responsibility for the lives of illegals are the illegals themselves.

It is the responsibility of the government to turn these boats around. It is also the responsibility of the government to flush out visa over-stayers and send them back to wherever they came from.

It’s quite simple. But, as is often the case, politicians talk about ‘complexities’ to cover up their inability or unwillingness to do their jobs.

Their jobs! It is not the job of Indonesia to help out; they have enough problems of their own. It is the job of the Rudd Government to get tough with these country-shoppers: turn the boats back, and maintain raids on work places and haunts of visa-overstayers to ensure that Australia’s immigration is actually controlled by Australia.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> It's disappointing to find Ruddock ... trying to widen his appeal

to widen his appeal, ruddock would need some appeal to begin with. i guess if one likes dishonest, fascistic thugs then he may be appealing. can't see any other attraction.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Braaaaaiiins!
Ignore this undead face eater. An unhuman, defamatory, causer of pain who lied and cheated, abused children, deported people to their deaths and illegally locked up Australian citizens. A more unfit minister there has never been.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 15 October 2009 11:08:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would love to see a country run by all of you pathetic bleeding hearts who would allow anyone with a sob story free access to everything Australia had to offer.

We could eliminate the cap on refugee intake, eliminate any investigation into the people coming to our shores, and maybe we could even pay them a salary for coming here, free health care access, and everything would be bright and happy and pink bunny rabbits would bounce through your house, and chocolate would rain from the sky.

You are like little children with their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalala". If I pretend hard enough it will make it true.

Wake up and smell the reality. You can pretend all you like that every comer is needy and genuine and safe to enter this country but that just isn't true.
Posted by burbs, Thursday, 15 October 2009 11:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can someone explain to me

1 Why these refugees, who are invariably from some failed islamic state, pass through 3 if not 4 other islamic countries to get here.

2. Why is it only sucker Australia that signed up to the international conventions on refugees, Malayasia and Indonesia have not done so. Why dont they take refugees from their own OIC member states?

3. If these latest batches of refugees are from Afghanistan,how on earth is any Aust Govt official going to detect who is talibanised and/or, a drug runner, given the tribal nature of the culture they are coming from.

4.What guarantees can any Australian Govt give that it will succeed in keeping out of Australia part of the massive opium crop grown in Afghanistan that is busily looking for new markets, and these new refugees will alomost certainly be a conduit. Anyone who says that it cant and wont happen is about to let this country down in big way.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 15 October 2009 11:56:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A tad depressing to be caught in some sort of time loop, but hopefully most Australians won't fall for the same old flood retoric again.

As for Ruddock, if Buffy wasn't just a fictional character, I'd be chipping in to buy her a bigger stake to take care of the problem.
Posted by JL Deland, Thursday, 15 October 2009 12:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one would love to see australia run by people who are decent human beings or at least resemble them. i seriously doubt it will happen in my life time. ruddock is straight down the line evil, no question. pretty boy rudd just as bad.

ruddocks legacy is one of lies and hatred. one has pity for his desendents having to move thru the world carrying that legacy. remember his "australian story" on the abc?..remember his dsughter?..she sounded halfway decent eh?..so even evil morons like him can produce offspring with a semblence of humanity. that seems to me to signal at least a small ray of hope in the darkest depths of the evil selfishness and racism that is contemporary australia.
Posted by E.Sykes, Thursday, 15 October 2009 12:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho hum... partisan politics, a fool's game for the masses
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs133.html#

“Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Henry Adams
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 15 October 2009 12:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I prefer Billy Connolly:

"The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one."
Posted by burbs, Thursday, 15 October 2009 12:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1) Bigmal, there's a middle ground. One doesn't have to accept all-comers, but one doesn't have to throw people in detention centres that defy geneva conventions. Processing and deportation are practical measures.

2) Leigh, are there any legitimate cases that you would even deign to consider? Even Ruddock, despite being using brutal policy instruments, made allowances for some genuine refugees, however I can't see any compassion in your answer at all. I'm not calling for a total bleeding-heart lefty response, but some acknowledgement that people out there are suffering and we're capable of helping out some of them would be nice.

People... this 'boat' paranoia really does scream of stupidity. I'm sorry, I can't take any of your seriously. Honestly, get informed and read these two articles.

Firstly:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25339551-5013457,00.html

"The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says asylum applications in Australia increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3980 to 4750. How many came by boat? Actually, 179 or fewer than 4 per cent."

Does that *compute*. All this boat paranoia is ridiculous. If you're going to make hysterical comment regarding illegal immigrants, either focus on the overwhelming majority who enter legally on planes then breach their visas, or admit that it's the grubby sort of people desperate enough to get on boats that you don't like.

Also check this piece:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25797512-7583,00.html

"The Howard government adopted the toughest policies of any Western nation against asylum-seekers who came by boat, insisting that people should wait overseas and form an orderly queue, even though their lives often were in danger by doing so and there seldom was a queue, let alone an orderly one. "

It's not some nice, neat arrangement where they can quietly queue and wait their turn. It's desperate and atavistic.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 15 October 2009 12:56:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back under your rock Phil
Posted by John Ryan, Thursday, 15 October 2009 1:43:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* but some acknowledgement that people out there are suffering and we're capable of helping out some of them would be nice.*

TRTL, in that case, the sensible thing to do, would be to scrap
the boat people trade entirely and perhaps increase the yearly
intake of refugees from 13000 to whatever.

Take a look at the present situation, it is frankly a joke. One
minute, those who sail first past the line, are welcomed and
offered a cushy lifestyle, next minute, the Indonesians are
fighting them off with sticks for us.

How frigging confusing do you think that is, for asylum seekers?

The 1951 Convention is years out of date and is being misused by
those with money, who seek a Western lifestyle.

What about those people stuck in refugee camps, with no money?

There is a way to solve this. Shut the whole boat trade down,
for good, take all refugees from refugee camps around the world,
update the 1951 Convention to the new reality of 2009.

Sadly Ruddock never had the guts to do this, but that is the
solution that is required, or the present little jokes will
go on, with losers all round.

Be honest all of you. If you were seeking to come to Australia,
would you risk your money on a boat trip or not? Is Govt
policy consistant ?

It is in fact present policy that gives refugees so much
uncertainty, for some are welcomed, others fought off with
sticks.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 15 October 2009 2:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, the illegal immigration issue is gonna be Kevin Rudd's Waterloo - watch those poll numbers crash!!
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Thursday, 15 October 2009 3:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Government with the help of the far right media is up to its old tricks.
Panic, we are being swamped by illegal immigrants.
They are coming in droves and we cannot stop them unless we take draconian measures.
Now if the truth were to be told by the media the flood is only a small trickle that adds up to at most about 2000.
Offset against this is the 239,000 legal migrants that the Rudd and Howard governments are actively encouraging to come in.
We need the skilled migrants to build up the workforce is the catch cry.
At the same time we are told that we are in a bad way and unemployment is bound to rise..
We are being treated as fools. And if we believe this rubbish we are fools.
Australia’s population grew by 439,000 in the year to March. How can that compare with the trickle of distressed people that actually have the temerity to ask for help?
Not counted in this number are the more than 600,000 “visitors” with special work visas, New Zealanders, overstayed tourists and so on.
Get real; the whole thing is a beat up to take attention away from the REAL flood that is crossing our border. They are here at the behest of big business to flood the market with workers desperate for work and allow wages to be driven down to third world levels.
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 15 October 2009 3:40:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Ruddock / Howard philosophy was soundly rejected by Australians at the last election and certainly, their policies and action on refugees and asylum seekers played a big part in their defeat. It was cruel, inhumane and devoid of any semblance of compassion.

Talking to my grand-daughter this morning ,I observed that Caucasians came to Australia under very similar circumstances; Convicts aside , they were economic refugees seeking a new start in a country that offered freedom from oppression, hunger and poverty or political persecution.

As the white colonizers usurped the property of black Australia, they decreed that future increases in the population should be of British stock, so without reference to or consultation with the ‘owners’ immigration laws reflected the growing seeds of xenophobia to the extent that orderly migration would express a preference for Europeans, many escaping the ravages and trauma of war.

Despite having participated in an illegal invasion in Iraq, and followed the US into Afghanistan, Ruddock refutes the ‘Push’ factor and obviously has no conception as to how the vanquished Tamils might be treated by the Sri Lankan Government which is alleged to have committed crimes against Humanity in their final defeat of the Tamils.

Rudd has inherited this push and although we all might oppose people smugglers, his Government is approaching the problem in a more humane way than the previous Government.
That is not to condone any action that might cause harm to people who are genuine refugees who have as much right to seek refuge or asylum as our predecessors had, notwithstanding the shameful fact that the black owners of this country are treated worse than the refugee
Posted by maracas1, Thursday, 15 October 2009 3:56:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRUTHNOW "Yes, the illegal immigration issue is gonna be Kevin Rudd's Waterloo - watch those poll numbers crash!!"

I hope so for all our sakes.

I for one dont trust,nor like, the weasly whining little creep. His body language is terrible and his articulation even worse.But then I wouldnt vote Labour in a fit at anytime.

Seen them up close for too long .. too many scumbags looking after themselves and their mates
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 15 October 2009 4:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bigmal,
I am so pleased that you will be voting Green this time around.
They are after all the only party with any integrity
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 15 October 2009 4:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it's all a bit back to the future from Ruddock isn't it?

Mind you, it's gratifying that this latest dog-whistling effort isn't getting all that much traction at OLO.

bigmal: FYI Sri Lankan Tamil refugees are not Muslims - and you've already answered your own question about why Muslim asylum seekers don't stay in the predominantly Muslim countries through which they transit on the way to Australia, i.e. they are not signatories to the UN Convention and therefore are not places where these unfortunate people have any hope of rebuilding secure lives.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 15 October 2009 4:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not mean to accuse Mr Ruddock of dishonesty but I am having difficulty accounting for this statement.

"During the Howard administration the UN High Commissioner for Refugees identified more than 24million people as refugees. Its most recent reports suggest that number has fallen to little more than 11 million."

There was no year in the Howard adminstration in which the number of refugees was assessed by the UNHCR as 24 million. After 1996, the largest numbers were 12 million in 2000 and 2001. From 2002 to 2005 the numbers decreased but from 2006 the numbers increased again to 11.4 million in 2007. (Figures from http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a02afce6.html )

These statistics suggest that during the Howard administration when the numbers of refugees internationally increased the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia increased, and when the numbers of refugees internationally decreased the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia decreased.

And yet Ruddock quotes these figures (wrongly) to imply the opposite.
Posted by Martin B, Thursday, 15 October 2009 4:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dog-whistle" this, dog-whistle that.

Broaden your vocabulary CJ. You're using the same old tired rhetoric a tad too often.

So any one who raises concerns about this issue is dog-whistling eh? Or perhaps it is anyone who expresses any viewpoint that you disagree with?

---
"The Rudd government maintains that the increased number of unauthorised boat arrivals is unrelated to its winding back of the Howard government's border security arrangements. It argues that softening border controls has not become a pull factor for illegal immigration to Australia. Rather, it points to increased push factors due to a global increase in displaced people and refugees. This argument is seriously flawed."

Absolutely it is, and critically so.

"It is clear that it is not the push factors that have changed. What has made the task of people-smugglers advertising their wares easier has been the unwinding of the measures implemented by the Howard government."

Indeed.

'Get tough or prepare for a flood'

Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation we now face.

A timely article and a good overview, Philip Ruddock. Thankyou.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 15 October 2009 7:32:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" ... However, asylum seekers in Indonesia do not have their applications considered by the Indonesian government, as Indonesia has not yet signed the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol. Instead, the UNHCR branch in Jakarta considers their applications. If successful, they will await resettlement in a third country. ... "

The above is an extract from:
http://insideindonesia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=29

an article by a Canberra ANU law student at that time.

..

The article also purports to convey testimony of Asylum Seekers who have allegedly been locked up in Indo for more than 40 years. So, for some, in attempting to flee one sh!t hole, they end up in another. One assumes that word of mouth carries the reality of the plight of these individuals from one country to another, and bearing that in mind, it becomes clear why say in the instance of people fleeing Sri Lanka that they attempt to bypass Indonesia altogether.

So, it seems to me, that when certain individuals of the liberal party talk about their previous domestic solutions with delight, what they are actually referring to is an artificially engineered situation which is in its own right every bit as unpalatable to prospective refugees seeking asylum as such places as Indonesia.

Thus, in reality, their demonstrated behavior is indicative of the fact they do not want to be a party to the Refugee Convention or uphold the Human Rights of individuals seeking our protection.

So, it begs the question, why are they so gutless as to not just stand up and say so? Something like:

" ... There are huge numbers of refugees and plenty of them want to come to Australia, BUT, we simply do not want to know about anyone who has not the intelligence/education/training and money to come via state mechanisms alone. .... "

But then, why would anyone expect anything other than political cowardice from child abusers. What we see in them is the shadows of the White Australia policy and it speaks volumes as to the rotten heart of this country.
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 15 October 2009 7:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> So any one who raises concerns about this issue is dog-whistling eh?

yep, pretty much.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 15 October 2009 8:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has any one heard of Tamil Nadu? Sonewhere in India, isn't it?

I have some strange feeling that it's the ethnic homeland of these people in question.

I have another strange feeling that it is a bit closer to where they are coming from, than Oz. Of course, they would be expected to earn their keep there, so not too attractive.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 15 October 2009 8:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. When asylum seekers flee from Afghanistan to Pakistan, the get to stay in camps ridden with dysentery and cholera. They are subject to rape and murder by the same groups from whom they have fled. They include some of the most traumatised people on earth. It is profoundly immoral to try and compel them to stay there. It is absurd to suppose that they had a duty to stay there and wait till somebody processed them. It was disgraceful to treat them as they were treated in Australia’s detention centres in order to try and deter others.

2. It is also immoral to expect poor countries to hold and process asylum seekers rather than their being supported and processed by wealthy ones like Australia.

3. In spite of the unreasonable processes used by the Immigration Department under the Howard Government, more than 90% of boat people were determined to be genuine refugees. Of those that were rejected, a small number have been killed and some more, having fled elsewhere, were determined there to be genuine. Ruddock should have resigned or been sacked when the first two were killed by those they said they were fleeing from, in 2001.

4. To assert that the cruel approach worked as a deterrent without proper research (i.e. merely on the grounds that the numbers declined) involves the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

5. Howard’s assertion that ‘we will decide who will come to this country’ etc was a childish response to criticism from overseas experts. The issue was never who should decide, but what decision ought to be made, and on what grounds.

6. Refugees who are granted permanent protection visas are expected to work for their living, like any other Australian resident. What is this nonsense about cushy lives?
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 15 October 2009 9:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen - India is not a signatory to the UN Convention, so Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have no hope of being granted asylum there. You seem decidedly ignorant about these things, so perhaps I should alert you to the fact that Tamils are but one of many ethnic minorities in India.

Ludwig - Woof woof. Would you like a Schmacko?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 15 October 2009 11:01:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love the way this subject divides people so passionately into hardline groups - arguments based on pure emotion with little in the way of real facts to back them up.

Statistics and facts are just brushed aside when they conflict with personal prejudices.

It's no wonder some politicians like to use it to divide the community into groups to fight among themselves - one Party in particular it seems.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 16 October 2009 12:47:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is CJ Morgan parroting his refugee advocates catechism:

“India is not a signatory to the UN Convention, so Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have NO HOPE of being granted asylum there.”

This is what is happening in the real world :

http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=63553
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article28262.ece

Note
1) There are Tamil “refugees” currently in India
2) India is considering granting them residency

To Hasbeeb
Incidentally , Tamil Nadu means “Land of the Tamils"!
Posted by Horus, Friday, 16 October 2009 5:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ludwig - Woof woof. Would you like a Schmacko?"

Aaaah hahahaha. That's funny CJ (:>)

Well....when you've got no meaningful response, why not try a bit of humour!

---

'Australia will send police and high-tech gear into several Asian hotspots in a frantic bid to stem the flow of asylum seekers.' Daily Telegraph 16 Oct.

So our illustrious government is now getting very concerned indeed about the escalation in asylum-seeking / people-smuggling. It looks like a huge tax-payer-funded effort is being launched in order to reduce it.....while Rudd's reduced border-protection policy pull factor remains in place!

"Rudd is a dud"

ShazBaz001, I think he is much worse than a dud.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 October 2009 9:14:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has Rudd lied?

Has he presented his request to the Indonesian President to stop the boat loaded with 256 Tamils been presentedas an attempt for him to get tough on illegal entry into Australia by boat?

I asked the question: Why couldn't it have ignored the Indo Navy and just sailed on?
All reports indicate that boat had broken down and was drifting in Indonesian waters.

So why did an Australian PM intervene on behalf of a group of people who were not Australians and who were on a boat drifting aimlessly around in Indonesian waters?

To answer; because their prefered destination was Australia, is a stupidity.

I suspect Rudd intervened on humanitarian grounds and asked the Indo's to save them ... they had no hope of reaching Australia and in all likelihood would have perished at sea.

He shouldn't have had to intervene. He had no right to involve Australia in an Indonesian matter.

Ethically he should have said his aim was humanitarian and he should not have attempted to present his humanitarianism as toughness.

To those who are constantly critical of people who still support the use of John Howards very effective temp protect visa's would you please stop the name callin, abuse and living in the past. Spend your time positively and present an alternative that will stop this very dangerous illegal traffic. I'll listen to any alternative and have an open discussion of your alternative. Most reasonable people will. By constantly carping and critising you simply cause the vast majority of people to think Howard's way worked and no alternative is possible.

ie put up or ... sit down and be quiet.
Posted by keith, Friday, 16 October 2009 11:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This partly why this debate drives me nuts

" would love to see a country run by all of you pathetic bleeding hearts who would allow anyone with a sob story free access to everything Australia had to offer" Well in some we ARE! And that is a good thing.

This too " If these latest batches of refugees are from Afghanistan,how on earth is any Aust Govt official going to detect who is talibanised and/or, a drug runner, given the tribal nature of the culture they are coming from" add that to the so called 15K they pay to get here and you get a sense of the ridiculous when it comes to protestations about a trickle of outsiders - why would a drug runner float over here - if you have 15K to slip to some people smuggler buy a fake passport or three and fly in like the vast majority of would be refugees - with change you could buy a spend a week or so at Crown casino - where the real crooks are while you look for work!

We have had it so good for so long we have become intellectually lazy and intolerant - well I welcome my swarthy fecund brothers and sisters - like all migrant groups I pray they inject more colour to the social fabric like the italians the greeks the vietnamese the sudanese the laotians the cambodians the indians.......god grief I am tired of the alarmists
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 16 October 2009 2:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one sneekeepete my sentiments exactly. This is a country of immigrants and there is more than enough for us to share. This whole debate is couched in racism anyway. There would be no outcry if it was ocean liners full of kiwis or poms coming here. You only have to look at the people espousing "tough" solutions to see the sort of bigoted, ignorant racism I am talking about.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 16 October 2009 5:36:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I still want to know:

1.Why India,Malaysia an Indonesia have NOT signed the UN Convention on refugees but we have.

2.Why members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries the infamous OIC, dont look after their own kind and grant asylum to Muslim refugees, irrespective of the UN Convention.

3. Why we get played for sucker when the same OIC tried to strictly limit our Freedom of speach at those appalling Durban 1 and Durban 2 conferences..but we are expected to look after their refugees.
Posted by bigmal, Friday, 16 October 2009 5:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith said

"To those who are constantly critical of people who still support the use of John Howards very effective temp protect visas would you please stop the name calling and abuse."

I agree it would be best to conduct this debate without name calling, although the level of calculated vilification and demonisation directed towards refugees by the previous governments - and seeing the totally unnecessary human damage that was caused - can make it hard to stay polite. But I still agree it is best to try to do so.

The simple fact is that "John Howard's temp protection visa" was NOT effective at anything other than adding cost, trauma and risk. The numbers continued to increase, mainly because many more women and children risked their lives on boats, as their option for possibly reuniting with family was removed.

Mandatory detention - in place since 1992 - didn't slow the numbers, despite the massive human damage and cost.

It is possible sending people to Nauru for years has some impact, although most of those people ended up being settled in Australia anyway, at even greater public expense than locking them up for years in Australia - so the potential effect of this, if any, would be temporary, once people saw an outcome was still possible.

The key thing that stopped the boats was getting the Navy to sail or tow them back to Indonesia after intercepting them, rather than towing them to Xmas Island (and the very public deaths of 353 people on the SIEV X around the same time). But this left refugees at risk of being returned to danger. Italy has recently adopted a worse approach - ensuring boats are towed back to Libya, which has a widely verified record of brutality towards such people. While Indonesia is far from perfect, it is well above Libya (and in general terms getting better).

If we want to match Italy for brutality and contempt for human survival, we could probably stop the boats - at least for a while, until other countries tried an even more brutal approach.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 16 October 2009 7:16:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
In your post yesterday, you said others should 'get informed'

It appears that you are the one who needs to 'get better informed'

While I have not checked the accuracy of the numbers quoted in the articles you linked to, there is a serious ommission from the information, either by Mike Steketee, of the Aus, or the UNHCR.

What was not stated is that very nearly all those that arrive by air, and do not have proper visas, are sent away on the same airline that brought them, back to their place of departure. The Immigration Dept website states that 97% are gone within 72 hours of arrival. This puts a completely different perspective upon the matter and has been mentioned serveral times on threads such as this, on OLO.

You have been around here for a long time so am surprized that you did not know of this, but I am not aware of you deliberately misrepresenting anything at any time, so I assume you are unaware.

Someone also mentioned overstayers, again according to the Dept website the figure quoted is one at any given time, not an annual figure. Most are tourist/visitors who stay longer than expected and leave, to be replaced by others. There are figures available that show the number of longer term overstayers and the lengths of time.

In my opinion, a real discrepency is in the number of 'permanent residency' visas granted to foreign students and 457 workers onshore.
With family these totaled over 54000 last year and are not shown in 'settler arrivals' In fact I had to write to the Dept to get the figures. This means we get 54000 more permanent immigrants that we are not told about. The previous government introduced this and the present government has not stopped the practice.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 16 October 2009 7:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo

People use the description of refugees who arrive by plane in differing ways, which doesn't help clarity of the debate.

Most people who talk of the 'asylum seekers who arrive by plane' are referring to people who arrive on a valid visa (tourist, business, student, sportsperson etc) and claim asylum some time later. The fact they arrive on a valid visa doesn't automatically make their refugee claim any less valid, although the percentage of successful refugee claims among this group tend to be much lower than those who arrive by boat, the vast majority of which are found to be genuine refugees.

This is certainly the way Mike Steketee in The Australian was describing the vast majority of claimants who didn't arrive by boat. Airport 'turnarounds' are a much smaller number, and in same cases are not counted as asylum claimants at all.

You a right, the overstayer figure is usually an 'at a set point in time figure', not an annualised (and therefore accumulating) figure.

People who gain permanent residency from onshore claims after initially coming here as a student or 457 visa holder are all counted in the annual figures for permanent residency migration program. They may not be shown as 'new arrivals' in that year (depending on what set of statistics you are viewing), but they are certainly counted in the relevant year's statistics of new permanent residents. Sometimes these are listed as 'category shifts', depending on the set of stats you are viewing, but they are still counted as part of the overall total of new permanent residents for the year when the permanent visa was granted.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 16 October 2009 7:49:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* But this left refugees at risk of being returned to danger. Italy has recently adopted a worse approach - ensuring boats are towed back to Libya, which has a widely verified record of brutality towards such people*

You miss the point there Andrew. We know that most African boat
people to Europe are in fact economic migrants, who are happy to
risk their lives for a European lifestyle. Many die crossing the
desert, many die when boats sink.

It is the very fact that Europe was a soft touch and many got
through, that encouraged even more to follow, so the trade has
grown and grown over time.

So it is the soft touch that can be blamed for more deaths, for if
none had ever got through, there would be no boat trade to Italy.

If the 1951 UN Convention were updated, so that all refugees are
taken from refugee camps, the problem would be solved. No country
wants a free for all, as we have now.

By all means spend more resources on refugee camps, to make them
more habitable, that should be a global UN effort.

The boat trade costs a fortune, not just in Australia, but in Europe
too. Hardly resources well spent in looking after the most
vulnerable. It is hardly the most deserving, who happen to sail
over the line in Australia.

But it has to be accepted that your soft touch is part of the cause
of the problem in the first place.

If no refugees got through on boats, there would be no trade.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 16 October 2009 8:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, Mr Bartlett's done a pretty good job responding, though I'd make the point that I did state the "overwhelming majority who enter legally on planes then breach their visas" indicating that yes, they do enter legally with visas.

And as yet, nobody seems to have answered my question as to why people get so worked up over boats as opposed to this much greater number who enter via planes.
If there was any merit in the arguments opposing illegal migrants, surely this is where the focus would lie.

Also, the fact that our border policies are among the harshest of any western nation, doesn't seem to get much of an airing, instead we get more calls about how despite being harder on refugees than other western countries, the country's still run by bleeding heart lefties.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 16 October 2009 8:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Andrew

Yes the more we seem to try to move on the more we are pulled back, by the polls, into facing Australians traditional fears.

So I have no idea as to our best policy.

Whatever John Howard did worked, and the vast majority of us accept that fact and we are not too bothered about the details... Christmas Island eventually emptied and the facility there was described by labor pollies as John Howards 'white elephant'. That white elephant is now growing to accommodate an increasing number of illegal entrants.

So what do we do?

Philip is probably right in so much as we can now expect flotillas of illegal entrants. Kevin seems to just want to spin the problem. The vast majority of us want a safe and orderly immigration and not a seeming holus bolus argy bargy rash of smarty pants on unsafe and at times downright dangerous leaky boats... and we want our leaders to deal with the problem.

I think we aren't too concerned about arrivals by plane because their numbers are limited by the number of planes that come here and because those planes are generally full of bona fide visitors, business people or Aussies returning. Leaky boats ... well no one knows how many there but we do know that when the arrive there are no bonafide visitors, business people or Aussies on board. ;-)

cheers

Come on now you've got all the stats, and have known leadership ... so how about suggesting a reasonable solution?
Posted by keith, Friday, 16 October 2009 9:39:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Howard's policy worked then it must have also spread to those refugees heading toward Europe because that number coincidentally declined at the same time.

The simultaneous reduction in hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq were just a happy coincidence.

I frequently see a similar relationship between rainfall and me polishing my car.

I'm sure that all the people-smugglers include updates of our legislation in all their travel brochures.

As Malcolm Fraser said - "Once you scratch the redneck nerve of a significant number of Australians as happened post-Tampa, then it becomes a political play thing and it’s very hard to put the genie back in the bottle."

Considering the recent attacks against Indian students and the recent Hey-Hey fiasco, maybe the foreign media have a point about our attitude.

If we're not prepared to live up to our obligations as a signatory to International Refugee Conventions we should at least have the courage to have ourselves formally removed from them.

Meanwhile, nobody's mentioned Turnbull's leadership for the last few days have they?
Posted by rache, Friday, 16 October 2009 10:33:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beneath the opening satire, there are some often overlooked facts here - http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boatstopper.pdf

Even back in 2005 there was disagreement about the effectiveness of the get-tough policy - http://www.theage.com.au/news/immigration/howards-boat-people-claim-rubbished/2005/07/01/1119724809508.html
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 16 October 2009 11:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
Below are the current figures from DIAC website. You will see that the 'illegals' entering by air is about 1600 and are the equilivant catorgory to the 'illegals' that enter by boat. As I said most are sent packing ASAP. See link below.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/compliance/managing-the-border/pdf/mtb-chapter3.pdf.

There is nothing to stop any person, that comes legally, from applying for assylum, be they arrive by air or sea. They could be either passengers or crew.

I can tell you why I object to the 'illegals',no matter how they arrive. Simply because they are dishonest and trying it on. their intention is to deceive and make it difficult for our authorities by destroying their documents. They are frauds who are trying to buy their way here rather than go through proper proceedures. They think nothing of lieing and bribing their their way.

I class them the same as a bookseller trying to tell me he is interested in my kids education. Rubbish, he is only interested in selling the books!

I would certainly not give them protection or permanent residency and would simply send them back to where the boat or plane came from.

They would soon desist once they knew they would not get what they want.

There is no hatred or racism in my views, I object because they are selfish and deceitfull.

I am quite happy to receive genuine refugees from Africa, Burma, the ME or elsewhere.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 17 October 2009 11:48:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well well well, ruddy's had an idea.

He's going to slip a few 10 of millions to the "right" people in Indonesia. This will of course, be to help the poor illegals, to settle there, although we all know who will get it.

Shouldn't be to hard to find somewhere to settle them, there's half of PMG to fill up yet.

Still, if that's all it takes to stop this flood of boat people, it will be a pretty good deal, much cheeper than the Pacific solution. I'm quite sure those "right" people won't let any bleeding hearts get in the way of a flow of the folding stuff.

Well done ruddy, you've finally got something right.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 17 October 2009 3:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, you state: "I can tell you why I object to the 'illegals',no matter how they arrive. Simply because they are dishonest and trying it on. their intention is to deceive and make it difficult for our authorities by destroying their documents. They are frauds who are trying to buy their way here rather than go through proper proceedures. They think nothing of lieing and bribing their their way."

This doesn't take into account the reality on the ground. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The 'proper procedures' take decades. That second steketee piece I linked to indicates how brutal it can be on these people.

There's no orderly 'line'. There's no safe waiting room. In many cases, in order to apply for refugee status, people are asked to provide paperwork and evidence, however I suspect that's a bit tough given that legitimate refugess are on the run.

I'll agree that some of them are indeed opportunists. I don't think it would be a majority, by any stretch. In many cases, they have children and doing whatever it takes for your children isn't opportunism in my book.

All that being said I do agree you can't simply open the floodgates, though methods such as the Pacific Solution have failed. Utterly. They cost a fortune and they didn't work as a deterrence. Given that Ruddock was the architect of such a solution, it's a bit rich for him to come forward now without any real new suggestions save for failed policies his own government was dismantling when they were in power.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 17 October 2009 8:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,

Keith writes: “Come on now [ Andrew] you've got all the stats, and have known leadership ... so how about suggesting a reasonable solution?”

I’ll second that Andrew.

--- A policy that lacks Italy’s & others “brutality and contempt for human survival”

---A policy that doesn’t have the “massive human damage and cost”( to refugees & Australian residents –please don’t forget the wider community).

But, an approach that still leaves us in control of our immigration settings –able to say no.

Yes indeed, I like to see that…
So how about you sketch out your blueprint?
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 17 October 2009 8:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see some silly refugee activist is making parallels between the Sri Lankan refugees and the Jews in Germany in the 1930’s

Two points

Sri Lanka has no expropriation laws, gas chambers, concentration camps or death factories.

These Sri Lankan are apparently “Tamils”, who having fought a war for the past 30 years+ have been defeated and are now trying to come to Australia

I would note, there is a significant “Tamil” population in India, a few miles west of Sri Lanka,

If these refugees are, as is claimed, in any “danger” why are they not shipping west (instead of east)?

Of course, if these refugees are “economic refugees” they would obviously seek to come here rather than India, where I am told “welfare benefits” are a little less benevolent than Australia.

But that is just food for thought really.

The fact is.. .Australia decides who comes to Australia, not a bunch of “Activist” pixies and not the refugees (economic of otherwise) themselves.

We have a humanitarian quota for refugee intake, these so called “refugees” should join that queue wait in line and be tested under its rules of acceptance… like so many others

instead of trying to jump the queue for their own economic advantage.

Bigmal makes some appropriate points on the response by a bunch of hypocrites who would seek to criticize Australia’s position for the purpose of their own political chicaner
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 18 October 2009 8:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
I think it is far more than a few of the illegals are opportunists. I consider they all are, or at least the vast majority. I think the criteria on which we judge them is far too low. Many would not make refugee status if judged offshore by the UNHCR.

Also the policies of the previous government did work and the boats stopped coming. It took quite a while of progressively making it less attractive but the boats did stop. Look at the last few years.Once the measures were relaxed the boats started coming again and will continue to come until harsher measures are taken and the illegals know they cannot get here and obtain permanent residency.

I do not agree that these people are desperate. If life is so dangerous why would they leave their families back there. They know when they get here and obtain residency, they then can bring the family here by 747.

Mostly the illegals are males so why do they not join the government forces there and help secure their homeland. Our troops are there doing that while the illegals slink off and hide here.

In relation to the Sri Lankins, I wonder if they are economic immigrants or are they escaping persecution or prosecution from crimes committed during the civil war. I would expect any government to be ruthless in getting those responsible for crimes committed during the war. Many nazis fled after WW11 to escape their crimes.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 18 October 2009 10:14:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to Keith and Horus who ask for my views on what might be a solution:

I've written and spoken about this heap of times over the years.

My latest example is here: http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=7298

It would happen if we recognise that Australia does still decide who gets to stay in our country. Amongst the many critiera we have set is one which says that people who arrive here and have a valid fear of persecution (as a result of some specified causes) are able to stay.

It would also help if we recognised that as a time of record levels of migration to this country, having a few thousand of those who are refugees arriving by boat doesn't actually cause any harm (unless we spend many millions of dollars and damege them in the process, as this hinders their ability to settle qucikly and inetgrate effectively).

Anway, some further thoughts are here:
http://andrewbartlett.com/?p=7298
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Sunday, 18 October 2009 11:19:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*having a few thousand of those who are refugees arriving by boat doesn't actually cause any harm*

Andrew, thats fine if you are running a chook raffle, but when it
comes to the immigration policies of a nation, its simply an easy
cop out. We expect more consistency from Govt.

That is really how the whole Italian/Spanish situation started,
with similar views expressed. Eventually, when the whole thing
turned into a flood, there was a far larger problem to deal with.

The time to get these things in order and Govt policy consistent,
is before its a major problem.

According to a report in the SMH, 4 million$ changed hands
for one of these boats to sail here. 15K$ for a baby.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hunger-strike-ends-too-many-have-died-20091017-h27r.html

That is hardly chicken feed.

What about those people stuck in camps, who don't have that kind
of money? Why should they not have equal consideration when it
comes to being accepted for Australian asylum?

There are points of principle at stake here which matter.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 18 October 2009 1:27:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well now it is the world refugee numbers have fallen..here we were thinking there were illegal economic migrants. So they were refugees. Thanks for clearing that up Phillip.

Afghanistan. We have sort of caused the people there a bit of inconvenience. You know starting a war and then having the hide to lose it. I'd rather think we can handle a little inconvenience as penance for our sins. We hear how much these refugees cost which is sort of bad mannered when all things considered.

Sri Lanka. I am not so sure. If people are making claims of being at risk then it is quite a huge charge against both the people and government of Sri Lanka now the war is over. We need to consider if the Sri Lankan government is able to extend to them human rights and protection. I do not know but would not like to discredit a whole nation based on an account by someone perhaps over stating fears for their own benefit. So I am not able to make a judgement one way or another. I am not even sure if they are denied a passport, so need to understand quite a bit more.

If they are credible claims then the easiest option is a temporary migration office in Indonesia. I would prefer myself to see refugees that have strong desire to come to Australia rather than resettlement of refugees that really want to stay close to home or familiar cultures. I have no issue with anyone entering the country and feel we need to take some responsibiity for their circumstance more than we do. If they check out with medical and security I can't too scary an issue. Up northern Australia we could probably accommodate some people from Sri Lanka as the white European does not seem to settle up here from fear of a little humidity.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 18 October 2009 2:12:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge

If I can just pick you up on a small point. The boaties are not all Tamils. There are, or have been, among them Singhalese ( the majority population of Sri Lanka ) .You see, under our namby-pamby refugee approach, both are equally capable of qualifying as “refugees”.Claiming discrimination from the other.

[ If it wasn’t such an important issue, you’d think it was a skit from Hey Hey Its Saturday]
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 18 October 2009 3:07:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - it is not a cop out, nor is it a chook raffle. It is a rational and pragmatic approach. It is also consistent. People are selected on the basis of meeting a criteria, and they are assessed more closely on health, security and character grounds than anyone else who enters here.

Those that do not meet the criteria are not permitted to stay - including some of the Singhalese who arrived earlier this year who Horus falsely suggests were accepted as refugees.

Contrary to ignorant shots about the Refugee Convention being "mamby pamby", it is quite tightly defined. This is a serious and difficult issue, which is why the debate needs to be accurate - and why Mr Ruddock's misleading commentary is unhelpful.

My point is that it does Australia no harm to receive a few thousand people such as this each year. That comment was made in conjunction with my other views that we should seek to establish a regional solution which would, over time, help control refugee flows through our region. Such an arrangement would require us to take a few thousand every year in any case. We have already started to take a few thousand a year from the south-east Asian region (mostly various ethnicities of Burmese origin).

This was done very successfully by the Fraser government in the era of the Vietnamese boat people. That does not mean every refugee was safely settled - we will never achieve an end to refugee flows until we achieve world peace - but far more were setlled far more qucikly with much less suffering.

As for the Tamils, the widespread oppression of many Tamils by the Sri Lankan government since the formal end of their civil war is very well documented. There is already a thriving Tamil community here who have shown themselves well able to adapt to Australia. But Australia should do more to pressure the Sri Lankan government to end the mass internment of Tamils - this one thing would do more than anything else to halt boat arrivals from that country.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Sunday, 18 October 2009 3:28:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amen Andrew.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 18 October 2009 4:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus “If I can just pick you up on a small point. The boaties are not all Tamils. There are, or have been, among them Singhalese”

I will defer to your better knowledge Horus….

Either way… these people are attempting an economic migration which does not qualify for “Refugee” status

Alternatively, regardless what Andrew Bartlett thinks:

If they think they are genuine “refugees”, fleeing persecution, they should apply as such and let their cases be “tested” along with all the other “refugees”, rather than trying to jump the queue ahead of people in real need of “refugee” resettlement.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 18 October 2009 5:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite so, Andrew Bartlett.

I see that we have the same old canards about asylum seekers being trotted out by the same old heartless bastards and outright haters, as if the repetition of lies somehow makes them true. There are some truly horrible people who post here.

Speaking of which, Yabby never responded to my request for evidence for his claim that asylum seekers were given free iPods at the Christmas Island detention centre. Such a man of principle.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 18 October 2009 5:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew you say..
"As for the Tamils, the widespread oppression of many Tamils by the Sri Lankan government since the formal end of their civil war is very well documented. There is already a thriving Tamil community here who have shown themselves well able to adapt to Australia. But Australia should do more to pressure the Sri Lankan government to end the mass internment of Tamils - this one thing would do more than anything else to halt boat arrivals from that country."

I agree if this is the case then the Sri Lankan government should be held to account and take responsiility for all her citizens. My issue is that I learned quite sometime ago not to believe official documentation. Always tinged with enthocentricity, not to do so is never taught in our mechanical universities. So I have decided never to make a judgement on other people, nations or people unless I have a personal insight, which is hard. I used to trust the politician to be able to fill in on my ignorance as I saw that as a reason for their being, but after Hanneef Affair and many others I have no respect for the official documentation anymore. I could not believe this persecution could happen in Australia and nobody pay for it.I felt quite sick, like where did Australia go? Though from what I know about you I have trust but perhaps not in the information given to you. So I remain not being in the position to play judge..which I guess just hands the power to the politician anyway.
Posted by TheMissus, Sunday, 18 October 2009 5:39:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It is a rational and pragmatic approach. It is also consistent*

A rational and pragmatic approach? So we offer first prize to
anyone who can sail over the line by paying bribes, next minute
we are fighting them off with sticks. I find that neither
rational nor consistent nor fair. All we are doing is encouraging
more to risk their money, to have a go.

If we are going to take 13'000 refugees, or more if you like,
we need far better criteria to decide which of the millions
we will take, then our present policy.

There are surely many deserving refugees would love to start a
new life here, but simply don't have the money. But they
are in refugee camps, where we source most of them from. It
should be all of them. That would be consistent.

CJ, the information about the free ipods was on a news broadcast
one night, when one of the WA news crews were filming on
Christmas Island. No, I did not tape it, I simply remember
the story, which was broadcast a few months ago.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 18 October 2009 6:07:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby: << the information about the free ipods was on a news broadcastone night, when one of the WA news crews were filming on Christmas Island. No, I did not tape it, I simply remember the story, which was broadcast a few months ago. >>

So it's just a an unverifiable and very likely untrue factoid you thought you'd throw into the debate in order to stir up some more fear and loathing of asylum seekers?

Yes indeed, you're truly a man of principle. I bet you love talkback radio.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 18 October 2009 6:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew
Thanks for your response. I accept you believe we have a right to determine who gets to stay in Australia. I see you have a three pronged solution to reversing the increasing flow of boat people.
1. solve the issues in the refugees homelands.
2. ensuring all refugees, where-ever in the world, are resettled within a reasonable period.
3. Australia just accept a few thousand illegal boat people each year as they won't constitute a great worry over the longer term.

Mate the first is totally unrealistic.
The second an impossible expectation for Australia to achieve alone. Bear in mind we already take more humanitarian refugees per capita than any other country in the world. We are unlikely to make much difference to refugee waiting times all by ourselves.
The third ...well at what point do you say enough ... one thousand, two thousand, three thousand, five thousand or 10 thousand per annum?

You appear to accept your three options won't prevent escalating numbers of boat people and your third option suggests you'll at some stage need to embrace a policy that does actually limit/prevents boat people arriving here?

Since Phillip's solution curtailled the arrival of boat people and you don't appear to be able to offer any workable alternative, am I being logical to suggest the difference between your position and Phillip's position is ... well ... numerical not philosophical/ethical?
:-)
Regards Keith
Posted by keith, Sunday, 18 October 2009 8:25:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew says: “Those that do not meet the criteria are not permitted to stay - including some of the Singhalese who arrived earlier this year who Horus falsely suggests were accepted as refugees”

This is what I said Andrew: “The boaties are not all Tamils. There are, or have been, among them Singhalese… under our namby-pamby refugee approach, both are equally capable of qualifying as “refugees”. Claiming discrimination from the other.”

Where does the –falsity–lie:
1) Your post attests that some of the boaties were Singhalese.
2) Your post also attests that –some—of those Singhalese were granted refugee status . And, those few who weren’t , I would suggest – are not GONE – but probably still in Indonesia preparing for a second, third or fourth attempt –with every prospect of eventually sneaking through.
3) And, as for our stance being namby-pamby, anyone who harbours delusions that our vetting processes are –thorough –need only listen to the latest Background Briefing , on Radio National (a station not known for its conservatism).The report recounts that there are sizable numbers of suspected war criminals among “refugees” who have been granted asylum here. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2715237.htm
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 18 October 2009 9:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew,

You have stated that it does Australia no harm to accept a few thousand of these people each year.

Could you tell me the EXACT number at which you personally would say that is enough and that no more be allowed in?

Thanks.
Posted by ozzie, Sunday, 18 October 2009 10:39:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems more questions are being raised about the 260 Tamils on board a boat berthed in Indonesia.

Did the boat leave Sri Lanka and sail to Indonesia or did the passengers fly to another place before embarking?

The crew have been taken into custody and are Indonesian.

If the people flew out of Sri Lanka their docs would be checked before leaving Columbo, so why do they now refuse to identify themselves?

Their accents suggest they may have come from Tamil Nadu, in India.

Could be more interesting revelations to come.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 19 October 2009 11:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look what happened to the original inhabitants of Australia when they made a mistake on who they allowed into the country.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 19 October 2009 1:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ruddock's propaganda meant to undermine Rudd's Immigration Policy is a bit rich. His previous Dept with buxom Amanda Vanstone wielding the cudgel, has a history of monumental hiccups that has cost the taxpayer a ransom in compensation. Funny enough, it wasn't Afghan camel drivers or Vietnamese tri-shore jockeys that precipated the debacle but home grown, dinki-di, round-eyed Caucasians.

First, there was the ex-Qantas hostess Rau, who was shamelessly incarcerated in Baxter gulag, under the most appalling conditions. The burly gendarmes took advantage of her, keeping her under physical restraint ( straight jacket ) to surpress her violent tantrums, and sedating her with toxic drugs to make their jobs easier. Her biography makes gut-wrenching, hair raising, suspenseful reading. It is said she settled out of court for $ 2 m. Me thinks she was short changed.

A priest visiting a mental hospice in Manila, found a frail, gentle old lady being wheeled around a cluttered courtyard. Discovered to his dismay, she was a Catholic nun,he recognised from Fairfield in Sydney. She was deported on flimsy advice from her detractors, even though it was subsequently revealed she owned an Aust pass port at some time. Her ordeal, which she endured with remarkable stoicism is nothing short of reprehensible perfidy. It has never been revealed what she was paid eventually.

There are probably many similar shocking stories that have been repressed. Subsequently, AV was amply rewarded with a UN posting, like Dr X, who succeeded JWH. Both are recipients of gratuitous Parliamentary Pensions, gold passes including partners, for Life, and indexed accordingly. Ref Parliament House website.

The present sage involving several boat loads of Srilankans seeking survival, and a place to settle amicably has again stirred up a hornets nest. The worst in people ( racism, prejudice,xenophobia ) is becoming evident in letters to the Editor, OLO, and current tabloids. Tracy Grimshaw probably cant see the value in resusciatating the age old racial boogie that devided us " nu plus ultra ."

Ch 9 depleted ratings could do with a smorgasbord of pent up, emotional hysteria.

It has been suggested the awesome
cont..
Posted by dalma, Monday, 19 October 2009 2:44:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RAN should intercept the decrepit junk loads of flotsam, perilously broaching our coastline. Claims of sinking's and drowning's and all sorts of rumours abound since Siev & Tampa, surreptitiously discrediting the Navy. Besides who enjoys chaperoning boatloads of suffering humanity for long periods, in unforgiving Weather and stormy seas.

The Immigration Dept today is the legacy of years of controversail malversation. Some of the arbitrary decisions have ruined lives and families. The appeal process leaves much to be desired.The cost is beyond the reach of most people.

It is common knowledge people are cicumventing the system. Many are coming in on visa's which are blantantly exploited. The Migrant Agencies are a professional enclave that prepares the documentation for new entrants seeking permanent residency. There are working/student/vevo/457 visas etc. It has evolved into a lucrative Industry, with many secular Charity Organisations involved. Sponsership has developed into a fine art for people seeking skilled employees, with endemic loop holes in the legislation. In the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand etc these operatives make all sorts of promises which are seldom met. The lure to migrate to Aust on profitable contracts and permanent residency is the same spiel boat/ people smugglers repeat time and again.

Through Hong Kong, scores are gaining entry to Aust, via NZ, where residency is less strict;then, applying here as bonafide Kiwi's which is fradulent. The 457 Visa for Professionals,skilled workers and Business class is a shyster's dream. Sex workers, bogus refugees, etc are gaining entry bypassing the system. Shocking stories of exploitation, broken promises, fraud, wholesale embezzlement is rife. Many sponsored workers are underpaid, not covered by Industrial Awards, lack languge skills,are oblivious to Safety Rules, work appalling hours, are charged exorbitant rents in overcrowded sub standard one room accommodation.No Health or Hospital cover. There is no guarantee their return journey is prepaid.

They are at the mercy of unscrutable Employers.
Posted by dalma, Monday, 19 October 2009 3:23:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So much living in the past, so much name calling, so much spite and so few suggestions as to how to ensure an orderly immigration system for entry into this country.

It's enough to want to make a reasonable person flee.
Posted by keith, Monday, 19 October 2009 4:56:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*So it's just a an unverifiable and very likely untrue factoid you thought you'd throw into the debate in order to stir up some more fear and loathing of asylum seekers?*

Sheesh CJ, you commonly spend so much time on OLO fighting the man,
that you also commonly have no idea where the ball went :)

I have no reason to assume that the reporter invented his information.
Its quite plausible, ie a way for information in many languages to
be passed on to what are commonly non English speaking and illiterate
people. At the same time, Kevin was trying to be "humane" and the
way that they do that, is to throw taxpayers dollars around, very
often rather freely.

In fact the point I was making still stands, asylum seekers are
treated so well on Christmas Island, that the locals there are
complaining that they are far better treated then normal Australians,
which was my point.

So that you don't get your knickers in a twist, here is a URL on
the subject. 400 bucks a fortnight is not to be sneezed at, especially
for an Afghan.

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/we-are-secondclass-to-asylum-seekers-20090930-gbyk.html

As a matter of interest, your character judgement is woeful, for
I have never rung a radio station in my life!

Just focus on the ball CJ, or your little hatreds for others
will mean that life passes you by.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 19 October 2009 5:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What rot, Yabby. Your intention was to discredit the legitimacy of asylum seekers as refugees and portray them as opportunistic economic immigrants. I've noticed that your arguments are getting increasingly dishonest.

It's a very common tactic among you dog-whistling types to introduce as fact something you claim you heard in the media, that you just can't happen to verify. Given your latest pattern of mendacity, I'm disinclined to believe you unless you can produce some evidence for your hate-mongering claim.

At any rate, even according to the article to which you linked, the locals seem more concerned about prices in the shops and scarcity of resources than the relatively humane treatment that asylum seekers receive by being allowed to live in the community rather than the detention centre. Also according to the article they receive less than the dole, which is hardly something Australians would be jealous about.

I think the simplest solution to the perceived woes of the Christmas Islanders would be to shut down the inadequate detention facility entirely and allow asylum seekers to live in the community on the mainland while they are being processed, since the vast majority of them end up being found to be bona fide refugees anyway. However, I suppose there'd be people on Christmas Island who'd then moan about the resultant loss of employment.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 19 October 2009 7:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, don't ever try to make a living as a psychologist, its not
your strong point. But keep wildly speculating about my apparent
intentions, for my perception of it is clearly over your head.

IIRC roughly 400 million $ was spent on the Christmas Island Centre,
for 800 places that is around half a million $ per head. Medical
care, dental care, recreational facilities, cash, air conditioning,
you name it, the taxpayer has funded it. Hardly tough conditions
for somebody coming from apparent near death persecution.

With email and phone cards provided too, no wonder more are
arriving. If I was of Hazara background, I too would be emailing
my mates to have a go at sailing across the line to win first prize.

We simply don't know how many of these people are genuine, for
there is no real way to verify most of the information provided.
It seems that when interviewed by the UNHCR, the results are
quite different to when interviewed by the Australians.

We know from African, Mexican and other nationalities heading for
the West, that a large % risk their lives for a cushy Western lifestyle.

So its time to solve this once and for all. Shut down the boat
trade and take all asylum seekers from refugee camps from around
the world. People would not be living in refugee camps, if there
was not a genuine reason
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Big Mal*

re 1. Emporor Nasi Goreng and too many rabbits.
re 1. Born to parents who clean toilets, always a toilet cleaner.
re 2. Does the Palestinian situation ring any bells?

..

*Rache* Friday, 16 October
" ... If we're not prepared to live up to our obligations as a signatory to International Refugee Conventions we should at least have the courage ... "

Yes

..

*Banjo* Saturday, 17 October
" ... I can tell you why I object to the 'illegals',no matter how they arrive. Simply because they are dishonest and trying it on. ... "

I would assume some are, but one ought consider that it is all too easy to judge others by our own standards, mis/conceptions and prejudices. Sometimes you know, we are dealing with very different people, who think in a very different way, who have a very different value system, and who also may be poor and uneducated.

..

*Hasbeen* Saturday, 17 October
" ... He's going to slip a few 10 of millions to the "right" people in Indonesia. This will of course, be to help the poor illegals, to settle there, although we all know who will get it. ... "

The Indos will prob create or enhance a minister or individual in a politically significant role, feed on international dollars coming in and pay out at a 3rd world rate. But then, this will sure up Bam Bam's posi and we will have more of his ear on security issues.

..

*AndrewBartlett* Sunday, 18 October
" ... But Australia should do more to pressure the Sri Lankan government ... "

If I do not misrecall, and according to AlJazeera, serious war crimes allegations have been made against them for acts in both the pre and post period and legitimate UN inspectors were still being blocked entry to the camps as of when I last heard.

..

*TheMissus* Sunday, 18 October 2009
" ... I agree if this is the case then the Sri Lankan government should be held to account and take responsi(b)ility for all her citizens. ... "
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 8:31:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I assume is generally accepted, Australia, despite its huge geographic size, has a very limited carrying capacity, relatively, in terms of physical resources and finances, especially if current "standards" are to be maintained.

Hear how some people already scream re:pensions, asserting that the stimulus measures (temporary pay increases) have to be stopped and that the next step will be to increase eligibility to 67 years of age.

Perhaps the blues are right in so far as that if more people who have nothing are allowed in, that the real costs will cause something like the necessity of increased taxes for the top end of town?

And of course, to appraise Australia's immigration system, if you are not sufficiently educated and resourced you simply cannot come to Australia period. Australia, like most places, want people coming in to bring with them plenty of bucks and to contribute.

When howard 1st came in, apart from trashing the pig industry and taking away reasonable dental, he hacked and slashed a whole range of services by way of the likes of max the axe etc etc.

So, why if he would treat his own in this manner, is anyone surprised that he wouldn't want to spend legally and in terms of security vetting boat arrivals, then in addition to water, feed, medicate, house and educate them when there is a domestic unemployment rate of more than 5%(?)

Seriously, if people seriously cared about everyone, the majority of new arrivals would be legitimate refugees and not wealthy educated people from other parts seeking a "better" place to live.

..

I reckon, $AU500,000 houses should cost no more than $AU100,000 and all that additional wealth in savings could be invested and diversified into new industry and development.

Having our so called wealth locked up in the form of 90% dirt doesn't seem to be good fundamentals to me.

One wonders why we bother to educate people if we do not want to produce with a view to enhancing export capacity aswell?
Posted by DreamOn, Tuesday, 20 October 2009 9:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DreamOn,
You quoted me Banjo* Saturday, 17 October
" ... I can tell you why I object to the 'illegals',no matter how they arrive. Simply because they are dishonest and trying it on. ... "

You responded
"I would assume some are, but one ought consider that it is all too easy to judge others by our own standards, mis/conceptions and prejudices. Sometimes you know, we are dealing with very different people, who think in a very different way, who have a very different value system, and who also may be poor and uneducated".

So you think we should disregard corrupt and criminal behaviour by the illegals on the basis they are of a different culture. If they hold false docs and/or deceive our authorities by destroying the docs then we ignore that. If they lie about their origin and circumstances we should also ignore that. Just how much do you think we should compromise our standards to accomodate those persons of different culture. What about honour killings, eating dog meat or human placenta.

Hey, we already turn a blind eye to forced marriages and FGM. Why not go all the way. Where do you draw the line. Maybe we should abandon our laws and social standards completely.

Sorry, but I think we have to maintain our standards and that is why I refer to the illegals as liars and cheats who set out to deceive us. They bribe and buy their way here and exploit our generousity. I believe they should not be allowed here at all.

If the present government can stop them reaching our shores by doing a deal with Indonesia, they will soon stop trying. I hope that occurs
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 22 October 2009 4:05:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Banjo*

If you were a legitimate asylum seeker I am reasonably sure that you would appreciate that when fleeing bloodshed, murder, rape and torture that all that matters is reaching safe haven.

The will to survive unites us all.

People who have known war understand this.

..

Thereafter, I have experienced something of other cultures and amid the diversity of it all, my view is that standards of common decency are indeed common in one form or another and no I am not suggesting we turn a blind eye to "serious" matters of criminality or politically motivated violence.

Boat people do not concern me *Banjo* They're easy to pick up, easy to screen offshore etc The ones that concern me are the ones that come through legitimate channels dressed as sheep but are in reality wolves.

No, my view is that when you boil it all down, the prime drivers of the liberal party simply do not want the responsibility and cost of looking after shattered people.

Cold hatred and grasping greed ..
Posted by DreamOn, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is some question to whether we are allowing the rapist or the raped in though.

When you read Sri Lankan website the picture is so very different to the ones expressed here.

Claims the Tamil Diaspora have financed terrorism, claims the LTTE were violent and repressive against fellow Tamils to increase sympathy and support from the west. A lot, a huge amount of anger from Sri Lankans regarding the stories western press are running are full of bulldust. Knowing the western press love spin more than anything makes me question what is the truth?

One young Tamil pleading to his own, please the only reason they avoid us is because they are scared if they get close to us we will blow them up.

Hard to know who to believe, it is incredibly stupid to accuse a nation of crimes just for sport. No doubt they have racism against Tamils but an indiscriminate killing spree? I do find that difficult to believe, they rely so heavily on trade. I read stories in foreign press about Australia that are so inaccurate. If you accuse countries of this and that, well that starts wars and incites hatred.

I asked on the other thread, Sri Lanka is an easy country to get a passport unless you are a criminal or associated with the LTTE. Is this true and what circumstance would be that an asylum seeker from that country would be denied a passport?
Posted by TheMissus, Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:32:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do you identify a “legitimate asylum seeker”?

By the fact that they are granted a refugee visa only after going through due process to prove their claim.

Versus

The economic opportunists who float here on the currents, lacking a visa or usually other documents which would prove the fraudulence of their claim

Australia has no obligation to accept economic opportunists who try to avoid proper process and processing.

The illegal action, in attempting to circumvent Australia’s migration laws is patent evidence of bad character and should warrant expulsion and a life ban on ever getting a visa into Australia.

That, in a nutshell is what needs to happen.

No whining
No sentimental dross
No exceptions
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 23 October 2009 7:16:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do you identify a “legitimate asylum seeker”?

By the fact that they are granted a refugee visa only after going through due process to prove their claim.

Versus

The economic opportunists who float here on the currents, lacking a visa or usually other documents which would prove the fraudulence of their claim

Australia has no obligation to accept economic opportunists who try to avoid proper process and processing.

The illegal action, in attempting to circumvent Australia’s migration laws, is patent evidence of bad character and should warrant expulsion and a life ban on ever getting a visa into Australia.

That, in a nutshell is what needs to happen.

No whining
No sentimental dross
No exceptions
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 23 October 2009 7:16:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cannot find any evidence at all that Sir Lankans are denied passports unless they are involved in LTTE. Can this be confirmed please? Asked a few times now. It appears the financing of human rights atrocities has been by those given refugee status in western nations. The same financing is used for people movements and a strong western network of LTTE sympathisers has emerged by exploiting the refugee process. So my intial concern that Sri Lankan rage at the claims made by asylum seekers does seem to have some merit. Even though there are documented human rights failings on behalf of the Sri Lankan government these pale into insignificance to those committed by members of the LTTE - who appear the only group denied a passport due to their status as a registered terrorist organisation.

The largest majority of Sri Lankan asylum seekers have done so with documentation, passport and the use of airlines. Why are some denied passport? This does not make sense.
Posted by TheMissus, Friday, 23 October 2009 8:30:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting to see the enormous number of hostile posts.

It makes me think that Phillip Ruddock has touched a raw nerve.
When you look at what the country is facing in the future, soil
degregation, water shortages, food supply problems and energy depletion
I think it is time to stop all immigration.

Immigration is rapidly reaching the deckchairs on the Titanic stage.
Shuffling people around will not be the solution, the world's
population has to decrease starting yesterday.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:26:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz: << Interesting to see the enormous number of hostile posts.

It makes me think that Phillip Ruddock has touched a raw nerve. >>

Rather, Ruddock's brought his trusty dog-whistle out and the same old mutts have come baying and salivating out of their kennels.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 October 2009 10:44:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and the same old mutts*

Sheesh, some of those mutts seem quite smart to me, as some mutts
are. Certainly alot smarter then our bleeding heart ostriches,
with their heads firmly stuck in the sand, to avoid the real world.

None of them seemingly are prepared to address the clear unfairness
of our present refugee selection process, of a boat race paying
smugglers to decide who comes in first. Never mind the millions
of others, poorer and in much worse circumstances. None of them
seemingly want to address the obvious ways that the present system
can be rorted.

So keep your head in the sand CJ, for those mutts around you are
making you look rather stupid.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 23 October 2009 2:02:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of you may be interested in the latest report of the Human Rights Commission on conditions on Christmas Island. It's available at

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html

For the life of me, I can't see how the unauthorised arrival of asylum seekers is evidence of bad faith. Getting oneself and one's family to safety without harming others is hardly immoral. If some others are kept longer in refugee camps as a result, that's the fault of the Australian Government. And until those camps are made safe, and their residents are ensured of quidk processing, it is not reasonable to expect people to stay there.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 23 October 2009 5:37:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The illegal action, in attempting to circumvent Australia’s migration laws, is patent evidence of bad character and should warrant expulsion and a life ban on ever getting a visa into Australia.'

Col Rouge, you have been told it often enough. Unauthorised arrival is not illegal under Australian law.

Still, though I have read the Migration Act a few times, I am not a lawyer. Can you tell me where it says that unauthorised arrival is illegal? Indeed, the Act seems to provide an alternative means of legitimation.

I cannot find anything in the Criminal Code, either--and there are no punishments for unauthorised arrivals. The High Court has held that detention is not a punishment, too.

'The economic opportunists who float here on the currents, lacking a visa or usually other documents which would prove the fraudulence of their claim.'

Where is your evidence that there is any significant number of economic opportunists, who are not weeded out by Australia's tough processes? This comment appears to be pure prejudice.

And why would genuine refugees carry identity documents? If they were captured before they got away, their relatives would be set at risk, as well an anyone who helped them get away.

For the sake of an example, where are you proposing that Sri Lankan refugees should go to be processed? To some country where their arrival is authorised? (Is there one?) Once they flee, what is the proper process, in your view? Is there something morally special about the nearest refugee camp?

CJ, even Leigh might be redeemed. But I agree that a person who thought that your proper response to genocide is to stay at home, struggle for change and be killed, in the hope that your martyrdom will produce some good, tries the patience of a saint.
(No, I'm an atheist.)

Yabby,

If you want certainty, you won't get it. We have no choice but to go on a strong balance of probabilities. There is debate about what is enough evidence--but when we have got it wrong, people have been sent back to be killed
Posted by ozbib, Saturday, 24 October 2009 8:13:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sort of tired of the same sad story. I did marry a refugee and know it is not all as it seems at times. They get their refugee status then a few months later back home for a holiday..in fear of returning?

Whenever you ask for further information no reply or you are racist, mental ill patient or some sort of admonishment from those that need a segment of society to belittle, not fashionable anymore to belittle those of colour so us it is. They always need someone to hate though.

Tired of it and if by design turns one against another due to what they force you to accept. History repeats.

They say for example that we we force just one home they may get killed so that is bad. Yet we have allowed entry to the LTTE members which has been reported as running deep throught the Sri Lankan diaspora in Australia. So we have faciliated the raising of funds for the LTTE human rights abuses which has resulted in probably far more deaths and horrific loss of civilian life. Oh but who are we to ask what they do with their money if it is not used against us? Very hypocritical. Just seems the majority Sri Lankan asylum seekers have travelled by conventional means. The boat people who cannot get documentation, but can get a lot of money, does make one think they are being funded, or smuggled, by the LTTE here in Australia. Why is this such a hard question, I am no expert but those that feign they are seem high on empty rhetoric and low on facts.

If we cannot ask such questions then it is probably wise to remove ourselves from the obligation under the UN convention because the trust is simply not there and it will only continue to hurt this country.
Posted by TheMissus, Saturday, 24 October 2009 11:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozbib,

--Re : “Col Rouge, you have been told it often enough. Unauthorised arrival is not illegal under Australian law.”

You’re a little mixed-up Ozbib.
It is illegal to entry the country as the boaties have done.
Their position only becomes legitimate --after-- they are processed & accepted as “refugees”

It is illegal to arrive in this country without the proper paperwork.
It is illegal to tell lies to immigration officials about your history /status.
It is illegal to sabotage passenger carrying shipping.
[I’m sure that at least one of the above is applicable to most of them]

--Re“ For the sake of an example, where are you proposing that Sri Lankan refugees should go to be processed? To some country where their arrival is authorised? (Is there one?)”
Um, INDIA.
They should feel right at home their with 60 million other Tamils all sharing the same language and culture.
And when you take into account the famous Morgan doctrine (often enunciated by your mate CJ Morgan with regard to Afghanistan ):If you contribute to the conflagration you have an obligation to pick up the fall out – India or certain parts of India have been up to their hocks in the conflict – so India would have a Morganian obligation to take all and sundry.

--Re “Where is your evidence that there is any significant number of economic opportunists”
I’ll tell you how you can find –don’t be lazy and expect others to do it for you (most lefties are lazy wanting everyone to dish it up for them!) --do a little research for yourself.
After your “ refugees” have obtained residency.
And after they have sponsored their mother, father and sixteen cousins , and eighteen adopted brothers.Quietly go an observe them, and count the number that return to their much feared place of persecution. My first hand experience has been that practically all do.
[ and see TheMissus's comment below testifying the same]

Australia’s “tough processes” ---what a joke
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 24 October 2009 1:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*but when we have got it wrong, people have been sent back to be killed*

So how many have been killed Ozbib? I remind you that in Iran
alone, around 31'000 people a year die from road deaths.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iran-general-/iran-road-deaths-soar-in-first-five-months-08972.html

If we risk living, we risk dying. Are you now suggesting that
60 million people from Iran should move here, because we have safer
roads?

*And why would genuine refugees carry identity documents?*

Why indeed, when we know that those arriving here by boat, commonly
flew to Malaysia, even from Sri Lanka, to board a boat, when they
had documents. If you are not aware, no documents means no flight.

*We have no choice but to go on a strong balance of probabilities*

Exactly!. There is a strong probability that those in refugee
camps are in fact genuine refugees, not so for boat people, who
simply have enough money to buy a ticket to the West.

*If some others are kept longer in refugee camps as a result, that's the fault of the Australian Government.*

Hang on Ozbib, Australia is not responsible for the welfare of
10 million refugees! That is the responsibility of the UN,
with all its 200 members. Australia has agreed to take 13'000
a year, which is generous by global standards.

*And until those camps are made safe, and their residents are ensured of quidk processing, it is not reasonable to expect people to stay there.*

Indeed the UN could do lots to improve those camps. But then some
streets in our cities are not safe either. What you are implying
however, is that Australia should not have sovereignty over its
own borders and who comes here. If people are fleeing persecution,
they are clearly safer there, then in their home countries, or they
would not be there. Australia does not have an obligation to solve
the world's problems and indeed it cannot.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 24 October 2009 2:53:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy